Mr. Speaker, the hon. member from the Reform Party who spoke just before me asked: "What are the motivations of the government?" I would like to address this issue. Given the current political situation, there is something quite strange about both the motion put forward by the Reform Party and the amendment proposed by the Liberal Party. You will remember that, after the referendum, Mr. Bouchard promised to stop, for a while, to focus on the referendum in order to put Quebec's fiscal house in order.
But strangely enough, ever since Mr. Bouchard made that commitment, federalists have made a whole series of statements which all seem aimed at bringing the referendum issue back again for debate and at putting Quebec in its place. For two days now, we have been discussing a motion we did not put forward and which brings us back to the referendum issue. In fact, the motion before the House today is only the latest element in this long series of statements.
Why do we see so many strange things in the strategy our colleagues have been developing in the last few months? Maybe-and this might enlighten the Reform Party-it is because they have a hard time swallowing the close outcome of the last referendum.
The House will recall that, immediately after the referendum, the Prime Minister, in what was probably a last-minute strategy, tabled here at the end of the session a motion to recognize Quebec's distinct society and a bill on the veto power. The motion, of course, does not bind the current or future governments or the courts, and the veto power, as any bill, can be revoked any time. Both were obviously in line with the Prime Minister's thinking, which is, as he said himself in the House: "Everybody knows that I am French when I speak English; I do not have to write that down in the Constitution."
Quebecers saw both of those things for what they really are, that is, smoke screens and meaningless attempts.
This is why, in spite of strategies, the sovereignist option is still on the rise in the polls, and more and more people, in Quebec as well as in Canada, are now convinced that Quebec's sovereignty is inevitable.
Why do sovereignists think that? Because they know Mr. Bourassa was right when he said that the status quo would be the worst answer for Quebec, and the status quo is what is offered to Quebec. Also because they remember Mr. Trudeau promising to put his government's seats at stake if there were no change, and they are fully aware that they cannot rely on that kind of promises.
If the Prime Minister did not learn a lesson from the referendum, the Canadian people did, forcing the Liberal Party to hurriedly review its strategy.
The Canadian people understood what was going on. Everybody now knows that the Prime Minister of Canada and the chief of the Conservative Party do not speak for Quebec any more. They both lost the referendum in their ridings. How can a man promise
anything for Quebec when he is not able to give any guarantee at all concerning his own riding?
Before the referendum, the Prime Minister was asking for support from his troops, his allies in Quebec, which is understandable, from his opponents in the House, the Conservative Party, and even from the Reform Party which he had made fun of for about two years. However, everyone knows that a man who needs to be supported is a man who is falling down.
The weakness of the Prime Minister had to be concealed as much as possible. A scapegoat had to be found to explain the unexpected result of the referendum. Mr. Ouellet, the then Minister of Foreign Affairs, pointed his finger at Mr. Daniel Johnson in Quebec and said: "We almost lost the referendum because this man was not passionate enough about Canada". I just want to remind the people and especially my friends from the Reform Party that Mr. Ouellet never came to Quebec during the referendum and did not even vote. That is how passionate he was about Canada.
Realizing that this strategy did not work, the Prime Minister announced a cabinet shuffle. To solve the problem, so it seems, because it is all part of a strategy, he appointed Stéphane Dion, the present Liberal candidate in Saint-Laurent-Cartierville, as the new Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. Who is this man? A hard liner who always talks about plan B. He is the one who tells us, and I quote: "I am coming to change the reality"-nothing less-"I will be the architect of the great national reconstruction".
He is the one who said, before the referendum, as we remember, that no promises should be made to Quebec because, according to an infallible mathematical model, it was impossible that sovereigntists would get more than 42 per cent of the vote. This man will be the government's strategist. It is easy to understand why their strategy is slightly flawd.
He is the one who said, in Toronto, before the referendum debate, and Quebecers will not forget: "The more we hurt Quebecers, the more support for sovereignty will drop".
If he is elected in Saint-Laurent-Cartierville, it will be the first time a member from Quebec, paid by Quebecers to defend their interests, will come to Ottawa to hurt Quebec.
The fact that the Prime Minister has chosen such a man to be responsible for the great national reconciliation, a man who displays so much contempt for the people he would represent, shows just how much the Prime Minister was dreaming and how far reconciliation is out of the picture, despite the fine words of the speech from the throne.
Things like that can happen only in Quebec. We would never see an hon. member from British Columbia elected on the promise that he will have Western Canada suffer, but we see it in Quebec. We see it because members of Parliament who are elected to the House of Commons as members of the major political parties, when they have to choose between Ottawa's interests and Quebec's interests, will always choose Ottawa. We had the best example of that recently in the House, when our colleague from Sherbrooke tried to work out an alliance with the Reform Party. He is a member from Quebec, paid to defend Quebec's interests, but nonetheless, he tried to form an alliance with our friends from the Reform Party to deprive the Bloc Quebecois, the only party in this House that really defends Quebec's interests, of its status as official opposition. But there are many more examples of decisions and stands that go against Quebec. I would like to enumerate a few.
Before the motion we are debating today, we heard a series of utteerly absurd statements from followers of our Prime Minister. Of course, there were the infamous text by Mr. Trudeau, which begins "I accuse", and I remind you that people who have responded to it are not sovereignists, but federalists from Quebec. Mr. Bourassa responded to Mr. Trudeau by saying: "If Mr. Trudeau was so vehemently opposed to Meech, it may be because he did not want to admit he was wrong in 1981 and in 1982". Mr. Johnson also responded to Mr. Trudeau by saying: "Mr. Trudeau has no doubt forgotten his opposition to Meech and to Charlottetown, and considering what he did in 1982, we should forget Mr. Trudeau".
The Indian affairs minister made some fairly inflammatory statements, which I will not repeat in this House. Who responded to him? The response did not come from sovereignists, but from the leader of the Assembly of First Nations himself, Mr. Mercredi, and I quote: "The Indian affairs minister is not speaking on behalf of the aboriginal people, so when he raises the possibility of violence", because that was the issue, "and of retaliation, I disapprove of him. He should mind his own business, which means fulfilling his obligations to the aboriginal people. He should not consider himself as an aboriginal leader because he is not".
We also had statements by the Minister of Transport regarding Mirabel, because it is a hot issue these days. He said this, and I will simply quote these few words: "The phasing out of Mirabel by the Montreal airports authority is a consequence of separatism, which has caused the economic downfall of the city". In this case, it is our friend Mordecai Richler who responded to that statement in a
passage from his book Oh Canada! Oh Quebec! Here is what Mordecai Richler said:
"Once the St. Lawrence seaway was in place, Montreal's slippage was inevitable".
That is when Montreal's slippage started. Finally, we had some bizarre statements by Mr. Dion, who said that "Quebec sovereignty could lead to a conflagration in Africa, a conflagration in Asia and could hurt Europe". In this case, nobody responded. Such statement was not worth responding to.
Finally, we get to the motion we have been debating for two and a half days and the amendment proposed by the Liberal Party. Of course, all my colleagues have examined this issue very carefully, they have looked at it from all sides. They have taken out their dictionaries, because of the seriousness of the words, they have considered all the facts, and I think now that they will be able to vote on this issue.
I would just like to say in closing that before voting for or against this motion and this amendment, members should keep things in perspective. First, what we have in this text, this communiqué, is a sovereignist vision. We are, after all, a sovereignist party. Second, this is not a statement that was made just like that, without thinking. We gave it thought before issuing it and all of us in the Bloc Quebecois are behind our colleague from Charlesbourg.
Third, our electoral platform was and is still very clear: it is first of all to defend the interests of Quebec, and second, just as clearly, to promote sovereignty. We firmly believe, even if this is not the opinion of everyone here in this House, that after 40 years of debate, sovereignty for Quebec is definitely the only solution for Quebec and for Canada.
Fourth, I would like my colleagues to remember that we have been elected to this House, that we have been through an election, on this platform and that we have been elected to do what we said we would. I would also like my colleagues to remember that we have always respected all the rules of this House and all the rules imposed on us as citizens. I do not think that anyone in this House can deny this fact.
Finally, I would like people to be aware that the letter from my colleague from Charlesbourg tells Quebecers currently in the Canadian Armed Forces what they would be offered in a sovereign Quebec. Contrary to what certain members of the Reform Party think-not all, perhaps, but I have heard at least two references to a call to arms when there is no call to violence involved at all-this is well thought out information being transmitted to people who will be voting on our political agenda. On the strength of that alone, there is nothing to generate discussion.
I would like people to reflect upon the fact that dragging our colleague before a committee to examine the circumstances involved means putting his motives on trial, for there is nothing in this document to justify taking it to committee. If that decision is made, there will be a political price to pay. Quebecers, whether federalists or sovereignists, know full well that the decision to shape their own future, their own destiny, is theirs and theirs alone, and that aCommons committee has no say in the matter.